I originally planned to respond to Anne Applebaum’s new article in the Atlantic, The Bad Guys Are Winning with a super-snarky post, snappily titled “The Ample Ass-Covering of Anne Applebaum Reupholstered,” bouncing off a long-ago post of mine, The Ample Ass-Covering of Anne Applebaum, written back in 2008, when she came back from Afghanistan, telling us that victory was just a matter of will: “Of course we can ‘win’”, Anne “explained”. “The real question is whether we are willing to pay the high cost of victory.”
Well, I didn’t think it was all quite as simple as Anne did, and I’ve never quite forgiven her for that column, which struck me as pretty ample bullshit, so I was “ready” to trash her all over again, but, well, the multiple horrors that Anne all too accurately describes in the age of recrudescent authoritarianism deserves a response that is a bit less juvenile than is my usual wont. So, let’s be honest: the bad guys are thriving in all too many areas of the world. The old “free minds and free markets” meme, which both Anne and I strongly endorsed, although with different stresses, is very much back on its heels, and the method of getting off them doesn’t seem to be presenting itself to anyone.
The problem is the same I’ve had with Anne in the past: she simply refuses to accept the fact that, time and time again, U.S. military interventions, which Anne always supports, have made the situation worse. For example, discussing eastern Europe, Anne writes the following:
The anti-corruption, prodemocracy demonstrations of 2014 in Ukraine, which resulted in the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych’s government, reinforced this fear of democratic contagion. Putin was enraged by those protests, not least because of the precedent they set. After all, if Ukrainians could get rid of their corrupt dictator, why wouldn’t Russians want to do the same?
Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Here’s another way (all my language):
In 2014, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine aggressively encouraged the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, assuring the rioters of U.S. support if they won. Putin was terrified; if the U.S. had overthrown one legitimate government because it wouldn’t obey Washington’s will, why wouldn’t he be next?
Well, why? Why do we get to invade countries and overthrow governments, and Vladimir Putin doesn’t? Later on, Anne moans about Putin invading the Crimean Peninsula. Reading Anne, you’d never guess that the Crimean Peninsula had been part of the Russian Empire for several centuries, as had Ukraine. You’d also never guess that a lot of people thought the Russian invasion of Crimea, which contains one of Russia’s most significant ports, was a given once Ukraine started to move away from Russia and talk of making Ukraine part of NATO became widespread. We might also point out that Putin invaded a country right next to his. The U.S. invades countries half way round the world, fucks them up for 20 years, and then leaves!1
For Anne, “bad guys” have no rights. Foreign affairs are to be conducted entirely on moral grounds, and the U.S. is the moral arbiter of the world, case closed. Every moral infraction around the world—and, as Anne demonstrates, there are many horrible ones—must be met with maximum resistance. There can be no compromise with evil!2
So, armed intervention, is that what you’re talking, Anne? Well, no, she isn’t. She keeps coming up to the edge—how can she not?—but never takes the plunge. Because if she did she might have to “explain” our repeated disasters all around the world, that have cost trillions, killed tens of thousands, overturned the lives of tens of millions of people, all for nothing! Nothing, Anne, nothing! Stop judging yourself by your goddamn good intentions! It isn’t enough!
Afterwords
If you can’t enough of this Alan on Anne ranting, try this extended take or just pick and choose from the whole list.
1. I’m not saying that if we treated Putin “fair and square” he wouldn’t still be an authoritarian. I am saying that the U.S. has repeatedly intervened in the Balkans and other parts of eastern Europe with complete indifference to Russia’s concerns, provoking ever-increasing hostility on Russia’s part. The simple fact is that eastern Europe is irrelevant to American security needs. I’ve argued this point before, and if you want a comprehensive account of how our “adventurism” has backfired, over and over again, read Ted Galen Carpenter’s Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements and Christian Alfonsi’s Circle in the Sand.
2. For example, Anne is quite upset that the U.S. has no “real” response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Well, since we’re not in the same hemisphere as these other countries, it would be a little difficult for the U.S. to try to duplicate China’s effort, which at this point is largely a set of grandiose promises, the sort that often don’t come true. I think it’s “likely” that the Belt and Road Initiative will never resemble the monster of Anne’s fantasies, but I also think it’s “likely” (though far from given) that China’s economy will someday significantly outstrip ours, and that Asia will be the center of civilization. That is not something we alter out of sheer “will”.
